@article{EidmannEisertRudertetal.2022,
  author    = {Eidmann, Annette and Eisert, Marius and Rudert, Maximilian and Stratos, Ioannis},
  title     = {Influence of Vitamin D and C on bone marrow edema syndrome — A scoping review of the literature},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {22},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm11226820},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-297356},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Bone marrow edema syndrome (BMES) is a rare disease with a largely unknown etiology. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically evaluate and combine the available evidence about vitamin D and C and BMES. The analysis of the manuscripts was based on country of origin, number of patients, gender, study type, epidemiology, localization, bone mineral density measurements, vitamin status and therapy. Sixty studies were included. The overall number of patients was 823 with a male-to-female ratio of 1.55:1 and a mean age of 40.9 years. Studies were very heterogeneous and of diverging scientific scope with a weak level of evidence. The hip was the most affected joint, followed by the foot and ankle and the knee; 18.3\% of patients suffered from multifocal BMES. Sixteen studies reported on vitamin D levels, resulting in a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (47\%) and insufficiency (17.9\%) among BMES patients. Three BME manuscripts were associated with vitamin C deficiency. Current therapeutic interventions include conservative measures (mainly unloading), various osteoactive drugs and iloprost. In summary, data about BMES in association with vitamin status is limited. A causal relationship between vitamin D or vitamin C status, osteopenia, and BMES cannot be determined from the existing literature.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LukasczikGerlichWolfetal.2020,
  author    = {Lukasczik, Matthias and Gerlich, Christian and Wolf, Hans Dieter and Vogel, Heiner},
  title     = {Beyond oncology: question prompt lists in healthcare — A scoping review protocol},
  series = {Methods and Protocols},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {Methods and Protocols},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2409-9279},
  doi       = {10.3390/mps3010009},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200832},
  pages     = {9},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Question prompt lists (QPL) are an instrument to promote patient participation in medical encounters by providing a set of questions patients can use during consultations. QPL have predominantly been examined in oncology. Less is known about their use in other contexts. Therefore, we plan to conduct a scoping review to provide an overview of the fields of healthcare in which QPL have been developed and evaluated. MEDLINE/PUBMED, PSYCINFO, PSYNDEX, WEB OF SCIENCE, and CINAHL will be systematically searched. Primary studies from different healthcare contexts that address the following participants/target groups will be included: persons with an acute, chronic, or recurring health condition other than cancer; healthy persons in non-oncological primary preventive measures. There will be no restrictions in terms of study design, sample size, or outcomes. However, only published studies will be included. Studies that were published in English and German between 1990 and 2019 will be examined. Two independent reviewers will apply defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and determine study eligibility in the review process guided by the PRISMA statement.},
  language  = {en}
}